State v. Fulton, 256 P.3d 838

Fulton was convicted of first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm for Caraway's killing; he received a hard 25 life sentence for the murder and concurrent 8 months for the firearm.
Caraway belonged to a Cripps gang subdivision; Fulton was a member of the Traveling Vice Lords; relationships among gangs are relevant to the motive and context.
The shooting occurred July 17–18, 2005 in Topeka; multiple witnesses placed Fulton at the scene and described pursuing and shooting Caraway.
Wallace testified he saw Fulton chase and shoot Caraway; Lax and Hudson testified about Fulton taking credit for the shooting; their credibility was heavily tested at trial.
Witnesses testified to plea bargains or deals in exchange for their testimony; Fulton sought to attack this on appeal, and the court allowed inquiry into deals.
The district court denied Fulton's motion for a new trial; Patterson (codefendant) had a separate trial outcome; Bruton-related severance arguments were raised but not preserved for reversal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence to convict Fulton of first-degree murder?	Fulton argues witnesses lacked credibility and the evidence did not prove who fired the fatal shot.	Fulton contends there was no evidence the gun he fired caused Caraway's death or that he aided/abetted.	Yes; sufficient evidence supports conviction.
Did the district court err in denying Fulton’s motion for a new trial?	New evidence or credibility concerns warranted a new trial.	District court properly weighed credibility and denied a new trial.	No; district court did not abuse its discretion.
Was Fulton entitled to sever his trial from Patterson’s trial based on counsel’s failure to request severance under Bruton?	Joint trial violated Bruton because a codefendant’s statements implicated Fulton.	No improper admission occurred and the failure to sever was not preserved for appeal; ineffective-assistance claim is not proper on direct appeal.	No; severance was not warranted and claim is not properly before the court.

State v. Vasquez, 287 Kan. 40 (2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Saleem, 267 Kan. 100 (1999) (sufficiency; guiding principle for review)
State v. Trussell, 289 Kan. 499 (2009) (weighing evidence not reweighing credibility on appeal)
State v. Davis, 237 Kan. 155 (1985) (importance of inquiry into witness deals or arrangements)
State v. Sharp, 289 Kan. 72 (2009) (importance of determining if witness has a state deal)
State v. Johnson, 289 Kan. 870 (2009) (credibility and weight given to witness testimony on appeal)
State v. Cook, 281 Kan. 961 (2006) (new trial standard for newly discovered or material evidence)
State v. Green, 211 Kan. 887 (1973) (allowing trial court discretion on new-trial motions)
Laymon v. State, 280 Kan. 430 (2005) (exception to ordinary rule on ineffective assistance raised on appeal)
State v. Gleason, 277 Kan. 624 (2004) (preservation requirement for ineffective-assistance claims)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (codefendant’s confession implicating defendant; severance or limiting instruction considerations)